Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
Search Results 0 to 38 of about 39 (some duplicates have been removed)
administration did more than just deregulation. they lowered the taxes on the top. one of the things to remember, several decades after world war ii were decades in which the country grew much faster than it did in the decades after 1980. and the country grew together. every group grew but the bottom grew more than the top. so we-- we grew together. after 1980, we grew most slowly and we grew apart. one of the things is we lowered the tax rates on the top. that increased the divide. and the other one is we deregulated, particularly in the financial sector, continued under clinton, under bush. >> rose: where you were the chairman of the council of economic -- >> i opposed those deregulation movements. but this deregulation allowed the banks more scope for moving money from the bottom, all those kind of predatory lending and kinds of practices that we saw. move the money from the bottom to the top. and if you look disproportionately large number of people at the top, in that 1% are from the financial sector. as a teacher, i see it in a slightly different way. i see a disproportionately large numbe
defending his own. ice going to have problems the next couple days on taxes however because he is proposing a $6 trillion tax cut and he hasn't said how he'll pay for it. but he still i thought did very well on most counts tonight. barack obama surprised me. i wouldn't call him he was passive tonight. he seemed to pull back a little bit on dodd-frank and preexisting conditions and loopholes. he had a good line but didn't quite deliver it with any kind of sharpness. never mentioned 47%, never mentioned bain, never mentioned massachusetts jobs. i'm a democrat, the consolation i have is i've got about 17 tweets tonight with people saying they thought it was boring. most americans think that and secondly debates rarely change the outcome. >> rose: mike murphy, what do you think. >> i think romney did win tonight but i think he won something bigger than one debate. he had a campaign that was in trouble and with this debate, i think he broke through kind of the stage villain persona that the negative advertising accredited around him. now he's going to get what he really needs to take the race b
that tax cut and encourage small business and we are going to have a real reagan round of reagan activity, the public may say yes, i don't think he is there yet and done that and hasn't sold the deal yet. >> rose: but he scored points last night by constantly referring to the middle class and small business. that was brilliant. >> because he took his business background, which has been a mixed blessing at best and turned it into economics, he kept saying small business, small business, small business, you have to avoid the tax increase that affects small business, et cetera, et cetera and he kept saying businesses. >> that's where the jobs are so he translated business into a good thing and a w to get us out of this economic dull drums, i thought that was doll drums, .. i thought tt was masterful too. >> i think obama has tried to rejoin the world, he tried to keep us from being the cowboy in the world and recognize when you go into a war, whatever act of war you commit, whether going into afghanistan on the ground or going in to iraq on the ground or attacking iran by air which is being
-term as your administration has shown with its payroll tax cuts, in 2010, look there is no question this made a difference in the ux, is economy you are having an argument why is the 1.7, 1.9 percent not higher? but actually, i can tell you from the uk where we have got negative growth it could be much lower. and that is why the cyclical problem of low demand has to be addressed on austerity can't do that, but that is not an excuse for a p after striding the structural issues the western economies are creating which above all is about innovation. >> but are they basic issues about spending that have to be addressed as well? >> yes. >> and where is significant efficiencies brought to bear in governance? where does that become -- whichs a good idea, when does that become austerity? >> well -- >> reforming the state is essential, there was a financial crisis in 2008, but we, and i am on the left of politics, we stand, we should stand for reforming the state to meet modern needs as well as reforming the markets to make sure it doesn't crash, and it is about efficiency. >> and market education?
Search Results 0 to 38 of about 39 (some duplicates have been removed)